Vit D recommendations today - Institute of Medicine

[Guest guest]

Recommendation of Vit D and calcium daily intake were released today.

For people 50 to 70 years of age the recommended daily dietary

allowance is 600 UI.

71+ years 800 IU.

For both groups the Upper intake level is pegged at 4000IU.

The report states:

" While these values vary somewhat by age, as shown in the table, the com-

mittee concludes that once intakes of vitamin D surpass 4,000 IUs per day, the

risk for harm begins to increase. "

Source Report PDF: http://tinyurl.com/2b5ych3

~chris

CLL CANADA

[Guest guest]

Did anyone see the article in the NY Times today? Also says we're taking

too much -

In a message dated 11/30/2010 8:55:43 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,

cllcanada@... writes:

Recommendation of Vit D and calcium daily intake were released today.

For people 50 to 70 years of age the recommended daily dietary

allowance is 600 UI.

71+ years 800 IU.

For both groups the Upper intake level is pegged at 4000IU.

The report states:

" While these values vary somewhat by age, as shown in the table, the com-

mittee concludes that once intakes of vitamin D surpass 4,000 IUs per day,

the risk for harm begins to increase. "

Source Report PDF: _http://tinyurl.com/2b5ych3_

(http://tinyurl.com/2b5ych3)

~chris

CLL CANADA

[Guest guest]

This article really caught me by surprise.. (I am " eating crow " ).

I do believe the data for patients with lymphomas and CLL need to be reviewed

separately and I am still advocating 1000-2000 IU daily for my patients, but now

you cannot quote me on it.

Rick Furman, MD

>

> Did anyone see the article in the NY Times today? Also says we're taking

> too much -

>

>

> In a message dated 11/30/2010 8:55:43 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,

> cllcanada@... writes:

>

>

>

>

> Recommendation of Vit D and calcium daily intake were released today.

>

> For people 50 to 70 years of age the recommended daily dietary

> allowance is 600 UI.

>

> 71+ years 800 IU.

>

> For both groups the Upper intake level is pegged at 4000IU.

>

> The report states:

>

> " While these values vary somewhat by age, as shown in the table, the com-

> mittee concludes that once intakes of vitamin D surpass 4,000 IUs per day,

> the risk for harm begins to increase. "

>

> Source Report PDF: _http://tinyurl.com/2b5ych3_

> (http://tinyurl.com/2b5ych3)

>

> ~chris

> CLL CANADA

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

If I were Dr. Furman I would not begin eating crow just yet.... (that could put

him over the top on his vitamin D3 'Intake;) And for everyone who is concerned

about this in the realm of CLL and other cancers, please do not throw out your

vitamin d3 just yet.

The biggest problem I have with one size fits all recommendations of this sort

is that they don't fit everyone.... ANY vitamin D3 supplement program should be

done ONLY with pre and during blood testing. Cmon folks, we get blood drawn all

the time. with butterfly catheters now, one more tube is no big deal. The

test is NOT expensive for those concerned about that. It should be covered

along with the rest of an MD ordered group of tests.

I have several problems with this 'scientific' article. first - " intake " is a

strange word, hard to calculate and prove.... they include foods that are

'fortified' with VitD3, and I think we all know that the level of trust in the

food industry is somewhat specious. heating, freezing and even radiating those

foods could very well nullify any availabilty of that added ingredient...

secondly, what source is used in 'additives'... bio availability of the actual

substance is rarely known and almost never proven. All the label says is that

they have added so many iu's to the cereal or whatever.

Milk, Spinach? sure, if you know where it came from, what it was 'fed' and how

it was processed ! go figure that the stated D3 is really there for you to use.

I sure won't take that to the bank. Salmon etc.... same deal.

Assume one lives in the northern parts of the US, Canada, and Europe, the amount

of sun providing a good source of Vitamin D3 is simply not enough, alone or with

additives. As for food sources, again, cooking, freezing etc are processes that

could alter the estimates of 'available' substance. Multi vitamins are anyone's

guess.

The Mayo studies used thousands of CLL and other cancer patients and their

conclusions were, while 'preliminary' pretty convincing. Almost without

exception, they found that blood taken from us and studied showed deficiencies.

Someone, I believe it was , postulated, and I know he wasn't concluding,

but based on his experience, it may well be that we 'use' vitamin D3 differently

than people who do not have our diseases. I agree, from my own experience.

My experience and that of others and now even my GP, is that I will continue to

take my current dose, keep my level at around 80 and watch my bloods monthly

since I do anyway. The differences, and improvements have been nothing short

of amazing for me. This even though my CLL is progressing. My wbc has

virtually stopped going up, but this may be due to more and larger nodes, my

calcium is now within normal ranges without adding, since when my D3 was at 11 I

was hypercalcemic and had secondary hyperparathyroidism... both gone now. I

have more energy and my neuropathies are gone. I would far rather take Vitamin

D3 than one of those osteoporosis drugs. this has taken almost a year, and

only done with concurrent blood work, and the help of both my GP and my long

time endocrinologist (cornell, now retired and I do miss him) I know my GP is

one who was so fearful of Vitamin d3 that he watches the kidney values too....

We are all different, and our CLL's are all different, so I am NOT saying that

everyone should jump up their intake. OR drop it. What I would say however,

without reservation is that ALL of us should be tested as part of our care,

whether it is watch and wait or therapy of any sort. Since it can't hurt to have

the information and in my dream world of cancer research (where data is made

available world wide), that information could prove helpful to others down the

road.

I didn't see any blood levels at all in their conclusions and their 'group' is

far too vast and complex to be of any use in a research setting. For years

patients have been scared away from Vitamin D3... this will only keep that

going, to the detriment of those who need this therapy. Maybe if you're a 13

year old male and spend time outdoors playing, (do they anymore? or are they on

xbox, or some video game, and how many live with good diet, fresh food, and so

on) But if you're around 50 + and have CLL I suggest not cooking that crow just

yet.

all my best, Beth Fillman

[Guest guest]

The test used to check my D was called a 25-OHD3. It listed the range as

30-100. (I was at 35). My nephrologist ordered the test and advised me to lay

off of Vitamin D because my calcium levels were high, which is a kidney concern

(I have had renal failure in the past due to cyroglobulemia). There is

apparently a relationship between calcium in the blood and D. The test reported

the total vitamin D, the D3 and D2. Google has sites that explain the

chemistry...

Toby Hollander

Portland, ME

> > I have blogged about vitamin D3 this week. I remain to be convinced that it

> > will help anyone's CLL, but the only downside seems to be the risk of

> > hypercalcemia, so if you are convinced that it might help you and you

> > monitor

> > your serum calcium then go ahead with it. But is you are a skeptic, hold

> > your horses.

> >

> > Terry Hamblin

> >

> >

> > In a message dated 02/12/2010 15:08:29 GMT Standard Time, bethcat@hamp

> > tons.com writes:

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > If I were Dr. Furman I would not begin eating crow just yet.... (that could

> > put him over the top on his vitamin D3 'Intake;) And for everyone who is

> > concerned about this in the realm of CLL and other cancers, please do not

> > throw out your vitamin d3 just yet.

> >

> > The biggest problem I have with one size fits all recommendations of this

> > sort is that they don't fit everyone.... ANY vitamin D3 supplement program

> > should be done ONLY with pre and during blood testing. Cmon folks, we get

> > blood drawn all the time. with butterfly catheters now, one more tube is no

> > big deal. The test is NOT expensive for those concerned about that. It

> > should be covered along with the rest of an MD ordered group of tests.

> >

> > I have several problems with this 'scientific' article. first - " intake "

> > is a strange word, hard to calculate and prove.... they include foods that

> > are 'fortified' with VitD3, and I think we all know that the level of trust

> > in the food industry is somewhat specious. heating, freezing and even

> > radiating those foods could very well nullify any availabilty of that added

> > ingredient... secondly, what source is used in 'additives'... bio

> > availability

> > of the actual substance is rarely known and almost never proven. All the

> > label says is that they have added so many iu's to the cereal or whatever.

> >

> > Milk, Spinach? sure, if you know where it came from, what it was 'fed' and

> > how it was processed ! go figure that the stated D3 is really there for

> > you to use. I sure won't take that to the bank. Salmon etc.... same deal.

> >

> > Assume one lives in the northern parts of the US, Canada, and Europe, the

> > amount of sun providing a good source of Vitamin D3 is simply not enough,

> > alone or with additives. As for food sources, again, cooking, freezing etc

> > are processes that could alter the estimates of 'available' substance.

> > Multi

> > vitamins are anyone's guess.

> >

> > The Mayo studies used thousands of CLL and other cancer patients and their

> > conclusions were, while 'preliminary' pretty convincing. Almost without

> > exception, they found that blood taken from us and studied showed

> > deficiencies. Someone, I believe it was , postulated, and I know he

> > wasn't

> > concluding, but based on his experience, it may well be that we 'use'

> > vitamin D3

> > differently than people who do not have our diseases. I agree, from my own

> > experience.

> >

> > My experience and that of others and now even my GP, is that I will

> > continue to take my current dose, keep my level at around 80 and watch my

> > bloods

> > monthly since I do anyway. The differences, and improvements have been

> > nothing short of amazing for me. This even though my CLL is progressing. My

> > wbc

> > has virtually stopped going up, but this may be due to more and larger

> > nodes, my calcium is now within normal ranges without adding, since when my

> > D3

> > was at 11 I was hypercalcemic and had secondary hyperparathyroidism...

> > both gone now. I have more energy and my neuropathies are gone. I would far

> > rather take Vitamin D3 than one of those osteoporosis drugs. this has taken

> > almost a year, and only done with concurrent blood work, and the help of

> > both my GP and my long time endocrinologist (cornell, now retired and I do

> > miss him) I know my GP is one who was so fearful of Vitamin d3 that he

> > watches

> > the kidney values too.... We are all different, and our CLL's are all

> > differe nt, so I am NOT saying that everyone should jump up their intake.

> > OR

> > drop it. What I would say however, without reservation is that ALL of us

> > should be tested as part of our care, whether it is watch and wait or

> > therapy

> > of any sort. Since it can't hurt to have the information and in my dream

> > world of cancer research (where data is made available world wide), that

> > information could prove helpful to others down the road.

> >

> > I didn't see any blood levels at all in their conclusions and their

> > 'group' is far too vast and complex to be of any use in a research setting.

> > For

> > years patients have been scared away from Vitamin D3... this will only keep

> > that going, to the detriment of those who need this therapy. Maybe if

> > you're a 13 year old male and spend time outdoors playing, (do they

> > anymore? or

> > are they on xbox, or some video game, and how many live with good diet,

> > fresh food, and so on) But if you're around 50 + and have CLL I suggest not

> > cooking that crow just yet.

> >

> > all my best, Beth Fillman

> >

> >

> >

> >